On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:08:33PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 09:53:59AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> >
> >> If block (type sector_t) is unsigned, we shouldn't cast it signed.
> >> This entire code path should be removed. What is BEFS's expected
> >> maximum block size? (Looks like even befs_blocknr_t is u64, so nothing
> >> seems trivially in danger of wrapping.) I would also note that all the
> >> format strings are wrong too (%ld instead of %lu).
> >
> > FWIW, this
> > res = befs_fblock2brun(sb, ds, block, &run);
> > if (res != BEFS_OK) {
> > befs_error(sb,
> > "<--- befs_get_block() for inode %lu, block "
> > "%ld ERROR", inode->i_ino, block);
> > return -EFBIG;
> > }
> > also looks wrong - ioctl(..., FIBMAP, ...) shouldn't be able to spew
> > printks on a valid fs and hitting it with block number greater than
> > file length will, AFAICS, trigger that.
> >
> > I agree that this code needs fixing, but just making gcc STFU about the
> > comparison would only serve to hide the problem. Anybody familiar with
> > befs or willing to learn it?
>
> Agreed. MAINTAINERS shows it as orphaned. Perhaps it should be moved
> into staging?
Only if we want to delete the thing. I'll be glad to take it there, and
remove it in 2 releases and then if anyone complains, we can add it back
easily. Just let me know.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
